


A Wrinkle in Time (2018) Movie Review

by seeley



Category: A Wrinkle in Time (2018), Original Work
Genre: movie review
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2018-03-13
Updated: 2018-03-13
Packaged: 2019-03-31 01:45:50
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 394
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/13964688
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/seeley/pseuds/seeley
Summary: These are my thoughts on the movie.





	A Wrinkle in Time (2018) Movie Review

**Author's Note:**

> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion- including you. Feel free to comment if you disagree and why :)

I watched _A Wrinkle in Time_ the other day and found it… lacking. Lacking the magic, lacking the terror, lacking the brilliance that the book contains.

One thing that makes a piece of art timeless and beautiful is its ability to elicit emotions from audiences of all backgrounds. That’s what made the book so amazing. It was marketed towards children, but every person who read it could identify with the struggles and dilemmas the book put forth. A sixty year old and ten year old could both read it and they both would connect to the characters and their plights. The book isn’t perfect, because nothing is, but it was breathtaking and unique. And the movie failed to impart the timelessness and magic that the book so effortlessly produced.

The director tried to make the movie relatable to “today’s children.” She contorted the personalities of the Mrs’s so that they would appeal to children; it was most notable when Mindy Kaling’s character goes _daaaannnng_. The characters fell short- they became cringeworthy and, at times, annoying. Another example of child relatability was Zach Galifianakis’ portrayal of the Happy Medium. Children will find the characters in this movie amusing because it was written specifically for them, but anyone older than the marketed age will find themselves unable to connect to the movie. In an attempt to be funny and relatable to today’s kids, the movie lost the weirdness that made the larger-than-life characters wonderful to readers of the book.

I adore the Murry family’s and Levi Miller’s skills. They undoubtedly possess talent, but said talent was lost because the script was so poorly written. The script consisted of stilted dialogue and forced the actors to over act. This movie is the classic case of “less is more.” Deric McCabe (Charles Wallace) came off more as a cringey, nerdy kid versus the brilliant and mysterious child prodigy he was intended to be. McCabe is talented and Charles Wallace is one of the most interesting characters in the novel, but both of these facts were ignored and it resulted in a boring, flat character. I think the casting for the Murry family (even though for some inexplicable reason the twins, Sandy and Dennys, were excluded- which eliminates the possibility of a sequel) and Calvin O’Keefe was excellent, but their talent was unfortunately ignored in favor of cheap comedy.

**Author's Note:**

> Another thing that bothered me was the soundtrack. I couldn't find anywhere to fit this critique in so I'll do it here. Some of the songs (like the one when Meg is using the glasses to walk up the enfolded stairs to find her father) were unnecessary.


End file.
